>>3248639>The rest is how it reacts to light and colours and renders them in the emulsion.I get that, chemistry is far different from a digital capture. The article I linked in the OP shows that, but once the film is scanned its just pixels. Like a digital capture, those pixels, values, and colors can be tweaked in post via presets or manually. I'm not trying to argue "if you process [X] film this way and end up with [X] processed film, then [X] preset looks nothing like the [X] film." But I don't see why it can't be replicated realistically, muddying up a digital file.
>All you're doing is adding a layer of grain and maybe some slight and unrealistically uniform colour cast on top (which you could just do in photoshop)How would you go about applying color cast and other variables convincingly, say you had the time?
What makes film, film, that a (((preset can't emulate))) Can they be added in post or worked around with the digital camera itself?
The only real take away so far from film is:
>>3248104which is, as you/article put it, the way it interacts with light. Chemistry versus Electronics.
Then
>>3248032time consuming and costly, but could /potentially/ provide a genuine film grain structure for digital processing.
Pic unrelated: Mother soon after marrying, trip to Canada, 1987
